Surrender terms for wars in Illyriad

Message Rating: Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

             Angrim wrote:

                 Sir A wrote:

the fact that some alliances are choosing to fight until their total destruction means that they don't care what the terms are.  Its just annoying that some of them choose to cry in GC about their cities getting wrecked when they chose to fight to the end.  You would think someone who chooses to fight to the end has come to terms with what that means but I guess not everyone has.

again, this false dilemma. am i the only one who remembers Hathaldir suing for peace without surrender? there are middle states between war and surrender; they occur constantly irl, whether or not illy has ever made use of them. rejecting surrender terms is not the same as choosing extinction unless the victor wills it so.

         Thats actually a really good idea Angrim, so create a peace treaty per say right?  The only problems I can see with that is that:

         1. The winning side right now has no interest in doing that unless they were running out of gold/troops which is not really the case in this war. 

         2. How long would a peace treaty last and even if both sides agreed to it would they honor it?

         But other than that I think that is a great solution to ending the current war (at least for now).  It definitely is more logical than the winners giving the losers reparations :P.  

            KillerPoodle wrote:

                Sir A wrote:

You would think someone who chooses to fight to the end has come to terms with what that means but I guess not everyone has.  So lets keep fighting and see what happens.  

The side that is winning has the choice - to cripple/destroy their opponent, or not. 

The fact that you also chose to blame the ones who are being destroyed just compounds your lack of honor.

         KP you really are the spinmaster, would you accept a medal titled "Spinmaster" if I made one for you?  I would be honored.  

         Anyway the way I see it in war the objective is to destroy your enemy until they lose the will or ability to fight.  So far your allies have taken the majority of losses in this war since they were the main focus.  It does make of sad that TCol had to take so much damage since they were the main focus and one of the biggest military powerhouse alliances in the game.  They were pretty much the main reason NC has hardly lost any cities.  And instead of helping them they selfishly used them to buy themselves time.  And then after TCol finally surrendered after putting up an amazing fight Rorgash from NC thanked them by sending multiple sieges against them within hours after they surrendered.  So don't talk to me about honor pls.  

         As far as blaming players that are being targeted; if you offer terms to an enemy and they reject those terms would you stop attacking them?  That would defy all logic and be really counterproductive.  So yes I blame the ones that are being targeted because they know the risks of being in a war when they entered the war.  And they also know that they can get out of the war at any time they choose and many individual players and 3 alliances have already done that.  But anyone that chooses to stay in the war are targets and should not expect their enemies to stop attacking them.  That is how war works and for me it really is as simple as that.  